Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. The time leading up to delivery significantly affects the state of a pregnant woman in each of the spheres of human functioning. Aim of the study. The aim of the study was to assess the biopsychosocial status of women in the antepartum period. Material and methods. The study was carried out in St. Queen Jadwiga’s Clinical Regional Hospital No. 2 in Rzeszow. The study group consisted of 200 women awaiting delivery: 100 preparing for physiological delivery, and 100 qualified for elective Caesarean section. The following tools were used: Labor Anxiety Questionnaire, Social Support Scale, Sources of Social Support Questionnaire, Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, and the questionnaire developed by the author. Results. Statistical analyses showed a relationship between the biopsychosocial status of pregnant women and the planned mode of delivery. In turn, the sense of availability of social support was influenced by the place of residence and living conditions, the number of people cohabiting with the respondent, and the number of people with whom they maintained contact with during pregnancy. However, the occurrence of somatic complaints was found to be associated with the level of labor anxiety. Conclusion. The biopsychosocial status of women in the antepartum period is influenced by many factors. Proper social relations positively influence psychological well-being, which in turn is closely related to the lack of pain sensations in the biophysical sphere.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".